What we've got to remember is we're all people of faith, not damn dirty atheists...
For those of you who care what Mitt Romney does, you probably already know that he's made a speech about his religion that's been compared to JFK's speech about being a Catholic. Except instead of saying that religious beliefs don't matter, because he's a 2007 Republican Romney emphasizes that his faith shares much in common with other faiths, especially other denominations of Christianity--and he finds time for some atheism- and secularism-bashing as well:

"Freedom requires religion, just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone."

So I guess any European country where large numbers of people are either atheists or vaguely religious just doesn't know the meaning of freedom, eh? They're just as totalitarian as China!

And those fundamentalist Muslim countries that live under sharia law--such as Taliban-era Afghanistan--they were just pretending to be religious Muslims. Obviously, since religion requires freedom, they were really just atheists pretending to be Muslims to subjugate the populace. So are any Muslims in that bastion of freedom, our friend Saudi Arabia. Oh, and any persecuted religions in China, such as Tibetan Buddhism, are going to die out any minute now, since the Chinese/Tibetan people don't live in freedom.

Come on, Mitt. That statement doesn't hold up to a moment's scrutiny. It's not just an opinion that can't be proven or disproven. If you look at the countries in the world, both historically and in the present time, that have had religion but little if any freedom, your statement is demonstrably false. And the European countries that are least religious are not any less free than the more religious ones. I'll agree that freedom/lack of an official religion is good for religious sentiment, but the only examples where lack of religion goes with lack of freedom are Communist countries, and those countries are under the sway of a wacky version of Marx's ideology that is so dogmatic that it bears many features in common with religions. Dogma doesn't have to be religious to be poisonous.

"What he is trying to say is 'I am a person of faith. Forget the fact what my faith is, that I am a Mormon. You might be Christian. You might be Jewish. I'm a person of faith. I believe in God,' " Martin [a CNN contributor] said.

Sadly, I've seen this attitude before in many places. A significant number of the people who advocate religious tolerance either implicitly or explicitly say something to that effect--that your religious denomination doesn't matter because we really all worship the same God.

"We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They are wrong."

Secularism is bad, mmkay? I suppose it depends on how you define "public"--for example, I have no problem with private business putting up Christmas displays for all to see, if that's what they want to do--but if he means removing religion from anything to do with our government, I'm on board with that. Government should represent all citizens, not just the monotheistic ones.

"Today's generations of Americans have always known religious liberty. Perhaps we forget the long and arduous path our nation's forbearers took to achieve it. They came here from England to seek freedom of religion. But upon finding it for themselves, they at first denied it to others. Because of their diverse beliefs, Ann Hutchinson was exiled from Massachusetts Bay, a banished Roger Williams founded Rhode Island, and two centuries later, Brigham Young set out for the West. Americans were unable to accommodate their commitment to their own faith with an appreciation for the convictions of others to different faiths. In this, they were very much like those of the European nations they had left."

So, Mitt, do you see any similarities between those who were only willing to go so far in religious tolerance and yourself, as your beliefs are expressed in this speech? Maybe especially those who were willing to tolerate other denominations of Christianity as long as they were fellow Protestants, but not those damn Mormons?

"And you can be certain of this: Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me."

And now Romney's implying that a "believer in religious freedom" is only someone who  "has knelt in prayer to the Almighty." Thanks for your narrow-minded speech, Mr. Romney. Even George W. Bush will give lip service to the right to not believe at all. I shouldn't have expected anything different from the guy who wants to double Guantanamo.